Was Peter the founder and Bishop of the Church of Rome.
www.babylonforsaken.com

It is time now to pull down the house that the Papacy has built over the centuries, we must not waste all of our time attempting to pluck away each plank; nay, we must only pull down the single plank upon all of the planks do rest, and then watch as their house crumbles; and that plank is the teaching that the Apostle Peter was the founder and first Bishop of Rome.

Rome teaches that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that he held this office for over twenty-five years, and that from Peter the succeeding Bishops of the Roman church inherits his Supremacy as the Vicar of Christ on earth.

The Roman Catholic Institution teaches that Peter established the Church of Rome in about 32 AD and served as Bishop there faithfully until 67 AD. If it can be proven from scriptures that Peter was not the founder and Bishop of the Church of Rome at that time, then their whole dogma falls to pieces.

Today I would like to present to the reader ten major points, taken entirely from the New Testament, which completely disprove the claim that Peter was in Rome during the period claimed by the Papacy. These Biblical points speak for themselves and any one of them is sufficient to prove the ridiculousness of the Catholic claim.

Point One.  Peter was commissioned by Christ to be the Apostle to the Jews.

The Holy Word of God states:
“The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" (Galatians 2:7-8).

The fact that Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles should be an embarrassment to Catholics. In the clearest language the Bible teaches it was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul also told Timothy that he was appointed by Christ to be the Apostle to the Gentiles (2nd Timothy 1:11).  Peter and Paul also came to an agreement between themselves that Paul would go to the heathen and Peter to the Jews (Galatians 2:9).  In fact it was Paul NOT Peter who wrote the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:1). The very fact that Peter is no where called the Apostle to the Gentiles precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.


POINT TWO.  The Bible teaches that Paul established the Church at Rome.

"I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Romans 1:11).


According to the Scriptures, the Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. But Paul says that he longed to establish it. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some twenty years before. What nonsense! Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Roman Catholic Church that exists today! But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.


POINT THREE: Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter.

" Nevertheless, brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given to me of God, I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Romans 15:15-16).

Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed." According to the Bible, PAUL Established the only TRUE Church at Rome.

POINT FOUR. Paul did not ever attempt to build upon another man’s foundation.

"Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Romans 15:20).


We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. This makes the belief that Peter had founded the Roman Church some “twenty years” before preposterous. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any
church.

POINT FIVE: At the end of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans he greets no fewer than 28 different individuals, but he never mentions Peter once! Here are the names he mentions:

Romans 16:1-15  Phebe ,  Priscilla and Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Amplias,  Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus’ household. Herodion, the household of Narcissus. Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.

Remember, Paul greeted these people in 55 or 56 A.D. Why didn't he mention Peter? The simple reason being, Peter wasn’t there!

POINT SIX: Some four years after Paul wrote Romans, he was conveyed as a prisoner to Rome in order to stand trial before Caesar. While there the Christians at Rome came to meet him (Acts 28:15). Again there is no mention of Peter. Why? Because Peter was not in Rome!

POINT SEVEN: When Paul arrived in Rome he called together the chief Jews (Acts 28:17), and taught them about Christianity (Acts 28:22-23). But what is amazing is that these chief Jewish elders claimed they knew very little even about the basic teachings of Christ.  All they knew was that ‘‘as concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken against" (Verse 22). Now, what does all of this mean? How could the Jewish leaders know so little about the Gospel, if Peter, who was himself a strongly partisan Jew, had been preaching constantly in Rome for 20 long years before this time? This again is clear proof Peter had not been in Rome prior to 59 A.D.


POINT EIGHT: Paul remained in Rome, in his own hired house for two years. During that time he wrote Epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, Philemon, and to the Hebrews. And while Paul mentions others as being in Rome during that period, he nowhere mentions Peter.

POINT NINE: Four years later (near 65 A.D.), he was again sent back a prisoner to Rome. This time he had to appear before the throne of Caesar and was sentenced to die. Paul describes these circumstances at length in 2nd Timothy. In regard to his trial, notice what Paul said in 2nd Timothy 4:16.

"At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge."


This means, if we believe the Catholics, that Peter forsook Paul, for they tell us Peter was very much present at Rome during this time. To believe that Peter was in Rome during Paul’s trial, is simply unintelligent!

POINT TEN: Before Paul died in 65 AD, he tells us that the only one who was with him was Luke.

2nd Timothy 4:11  Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee; for he is useful to me for ministering.

Though the Catholics say that Peter was in Rome at this time, the Apostle Paul distinctly informs us that Peter was not in Rome in 65 A.D. Paul said: "Only Luke is with me" (2nd Timothy 4:11).
The truth becomes very plain. Paul wrote TO Rome; he had been IN Rome; and at the end wrote at least six epistles FROM Rome; and not only does he never mention Peter, but at the last moment says: "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome!

III. WHERE’S PETER?

From our study of Scriptures we must admit that it isn’t Biblical to think Peter had founded and cared for the Roman Church as Bishop for 30 years. So we now ask, where was Peter? Where does the Scriptures declare him to be? As the Apostle to the Jews where should he be?

Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4).

In 49 A.D., he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. (Acts 15)

About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he and Paul had differences because he wouldn't sit or eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-12). Doesn’t it seem strange for a man who has been the Pastor of a Gentile Roman Church for nearly twenty-years [as Rome declares] to not want his Jewish Brethren to know that he ate with Gentiles?

Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews.

1st Peter 5:13  The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.



IS PETER’S BABYLON ROME?

To which Babylon had Peter resided in 66 AD? Was it the Babylon on the Euphrates? The Babylon near Cairo in Egypt? Or was this term “Babylon” a code name Peter used for the City of Rome?

We must remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. To which Babylon would he be most effective? The Roman Babylon who had but eight-thousand Jews? To Cairo where the number is not much more? Or to Babylon of Mesopotamia? I think it is clear that this Babylon was the natural Babylon of history, which existed in Mesopotamia, on the river Euphrates.

History shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is little wonder why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, since this is the type of language spoken in Babylon.

Catholics will strongly object to this conclusion, seeing that this is their only proof text in all the Bible that could even possibly support their supposition that Peter was in Rome. They are very adamant that “Babylon” is a code word for their very city. I must agree that the term “Babylon” is used to refer to their city and their very Church in Revelation chapter seventeen, but here Peter is not writing about a Mystery, but is being very straight forward about his location. Think dear reader, if Peter had been in Rome as head of the Church there for twenty-five years, preaching and working the works of the Lord [as the Papacy contends], why would he attempt to make his whereabouts secrete? How would his Roman residency be a secrete to any? I can assure you it could not be.

What I would like to do with this next section of this booklet is to lend the space to some well known, and well-researched Bible Commentators; some dating back over four-hundred years. I would like for you to read their thoughts about this subject and see to which side belongs the strongest argument.


COMMENTS ON PETER’S BABYLON

The Geneva Bible commentary
states concerning the term “Babylon” in 1st Peter 5:13 . “In that famous city of Assyria, where Peter the apostle of circumcision then was.”

John Gill writes:

“that Peter was at Rome, when he wrote this epistle, cannot be proved, nor any reason be given why the proper name of the place should be concealed, and a figurative one expressed. It is best therefore to understand it literally, of Babylon in Assyria, the metropolis of the dispersion of the Jews, and the centre of it, to whom the apostle wrote; and where, as the minister of the circumcision, he may be thought to reside, here being a number of persons converted and formed into a Gospel church state, whereby was fulfilled the prophecy in # Ps 87:4 perhaps this church might consist chiefly of Jews, which might be the reason of the apostle’s being here, since there were great numbers which continued here, from the time of the captivity, who returned not with Ezra; and these are said by the Jews {f} to be of the purest blood: many of the Jewish doctors lived here; they had three famous universities in this country, and here their Talmud was written, called from hence {g} Babylonian. The church in this place is said to be “



Barnes intro to 1st Peter states: II.—-THE TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING THE EPISTLE.

On this point also there has been no little diversity of opinion. The only designation of the place where it was written which occurs in the epistle is in #1Pe 5:13: "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you." From this it is clear that it was written at Babylon, but still there has been no little difference of opinion as to what place is meant here by Babylon. Some have supposed that it refers to the well-known place of that name on the Euphrates; others to... Rome, represented as Babylon. The claims of each of these places it is proper to examine. The order in which this is done is not material.

{Is Babylon here meant to be Rome?}  Others have supposed that Rome is intended by the name Babylon. This was the opinion of many of the Fathers, and also of Bede, Valesills, Grotius, Cave, Whitby, and Lardner. The principal reasons for this are, that such is the testimony of Papias, Eusebius, and Jerome; and that at that time Babylon on the Euphrates was destroyed. See Lardner. But the objections to this opinion seem to me to be insuperable.

(a.) There is no evidence that at that early period the name Babylon was given to Rome, nor were there any existing reasons why it should be. The name is generally supposed to have been applied to it by John, in the book of Revelation, (#Re 16:19 17:5 18:10,21;) but this was probably long after this epistle was written, and for reasons which did not exist in the time of Peter. There is no evidence that it was given familiarly to it in the time of Peter, or even at all until after his death. Certain it is, that it was not given so familiarly to it that when the name Babylon was mentioned it would be generally understood that Rome was intended. But the only reason which Peter could have had for mentioning the name Babylon at all, was to convey some definite and certain information to those to whom he wrote.

(b.) As has been already observed, the apostles, when they sent an epistle to the churches, and mentioned a place as the one where the epistle was written, were accustomed to mention the real place.

(c.) It would be hardly consistent with the dignity of an apostle, or any grave writer, to make use of what would be regarded as a nickname, when suggesting the name of a place where he then was.

(d.) If Rome had been meant, it would have been hardly respectful to the church there which sent the salutation—"The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you"—to have given it this name. Peter mentions the church with respect and kindness; and yet it would have been scarcely regarded as kind to mention it as a, "church in Babylon," if he used the term Babylon, as he must have done on such a supposition, to denote a place of eminent depravity.

(e.) The testimony of the Fathers on this subject does not demonstrate that Rome was the place intended. So far as appears from the extracts relied on by Lardner, they do not give this as historical testimony, but as their own interpretation; and, from anything that appears, we are as well qualified to interpret the word as they were.

(f.) In regard to the objection that Babylon was at that time destroyed, it may be remarked that this is true so far as the original splendour of the city was concerned, but still there may have been a sufficient population there to have constituted a church. The destruction of Babylon was gradual. It had not become an utter desert in the time of the apostles.... All that time, there is no improbability in supposing that a Christian church may have existed there. It should be added here, however, that on the supposition that the word Babylon refers to Rome, rests nearly all the evidence which the Roman Catholics can adduce that the apostle Peter was ever at Rome at all. There is nothing else in the New Testament that furnishes the slightest proof that he ever was there. The only passage on which Bellarmine relies to show that Peter was at Rome, is the very passage now under consideration. "That Peter was one time at Rome," he says, "we show first from the testimony of Peter himself, who thus speaks at the end of his first epistle: ‘The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you.’" He does not pretend to cite any other evidence from Scripture than this; nor does any other writer.

There remains the opinion, that the well-known Babylon on the Euphrates was the place where the epistle was written. This was the opinion of Erasmus, Drusius, Lightfoot, Bengel, Wetstein, Bashage, Beausobre, and others. That this is the correct opinion seems to me to be clear from the following considerations:

(a.) It is the most natural and obvious interpretation. It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament now, and is that which would have been naturally adopted by those to whom the epistle was sent. The word Babylon, without something to give it a different application, would have been understood anywhere to denote the well-known place on the Euphrates.

(b.) There is, as has been observed already, no improbability that there was a Christian church there, but there are several circumstances which render it probable that this would be the case:

1st. Babylon had been an important place; and its history was such, and its relation to the Jews such, as to make it probable that the attention of the apostles would be turned to it.

2nd. The apostles, according to all the traditions which we have respecting them, travelled extensively in the East, and nothing would be more natural than that they should visit Babylon.

3rd. There were many Jews of the captivity remaining in that region, and it would be in the highest degree probable that they would seek to carry the gospel to their own countrymen there. See Koppe, Proleg., pp. 16—18. Jos. Ant., b. xv., chap. ii., 2; chap. iii., 1. Philo. De Virtut., p. 587.

These considerations make it clear that the place where the epistle was written was Babylon on the Euphrates, the place so celebrated in ancient sacred and profane history.



The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary states: Babylon—The Chaldean Babylon on the Euphrates. See JFB on "1Pe 1:1", Introduction,  ON THE PLACE OF WRITING this Epistle, in proof that Rome is not meant as Papists assert; compare LIGHTFOOT sermon. How unlikely that in a friendly salutation the enigmatical title of Rome given in prophecy (John, #Re 17:5), should be used! Babylon was the center from which the Asiatic dispersion whom Peter addresses was derived. PHILO [The Embassy to Gaius,  36] and JOSEPHUS [Antiquities,  15.2.2; 23.12] inform us that Babylon contained a great many Jews in the apostolic age (whereas those at Rome were comparatively few, about eight thousand [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities,  17.11]); so it would naturally be visited by the apostle of the circumcision. It was the headquarters of those whom he had so successfully addressed on Pentecost, #Ac 2:9, Jewish "Parthians ... dwellers in Mesopotamia" (the Parthians were then masters of Mesopotamian Babylon); these he ministered to in person. His other hearers, the Jewish "dwellers in Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia," he now ministers to by letter. The earliest distinct authority for Peter’s martyrdom at Rome is DIONYSIUS, bishop of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century. The desirableness of representing Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles, as together founding the Church of the metropolis, seems to have originated the tradition. CLEMENT OF ROME [First Epistle to the Corinthians,  4.5], often quoted for, is really against it. He mentions Paul and Peter together, but makes it as a distinguishing circumstance of Paul, that he preached both in the East and West, implying that Peter never was in the West. In #2Pe 1:14, he says, "I must shortly put off this tabernacle," implying his martyrdom was near, yet he makes no allusion to Rome, or any intention of his visiting it”.


Alford says, "There is no reason whatever for regarding this any place but the Chaldean capital."


Poole states: The church that is at Babylon;  Babylon in Chaldea, where it is most probable the apostle was at the writing of this Epistle; the Jews being very numerous in those parts, as having settled themselves there ever since the captivity, and Peter being an apostle of the circumcision, his work lay much thereabout. The papists would have Babylon here to be Rome, as #Re 17:1-18..  Wherever he was, he had Mark now with him, who is said to have died at Alexandria the eighth year of Nero, and Peter not till six years after. If Mark then did first constitute the church of Alexandria, and govern it (as they say he did) for many years, it will be hard to find him and Peter at Rome together.



So Clearly the Bible denies that Peter was the Founder of Church in Rome.



                                        
       BACK TO CATHOLICISM

                                                    
HOME